DOCSLIB.ORG

Palouse Subbasin Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Palouse Subbasin Management Plan FINAL DRAFT ~ May 2004 Project Lead: Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District Trevor Cook, Project Manager PO Box 438 St. John WA 99171 (509) 648-3680 Prepared by: Shelly Gilmore Resource Planning Unlimited, Inc. 1406 East F Street Moscow, ID 83843 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan FINAL DRAFT ~ May 2004 Project Lead: Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District Trevor Cook, Project Manager PO Box 438 St. John WA 99171 (509) 648-3680 Prepared by: Shelly Gilmore Resource Planning Unlimited, Inc. 1406 East F Street Moscow, ID 83843 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: Table of Contents i. Introduction i 1. Assessment 1.1 The Palouse Subbasin Of The Past 1-1 1.2 The Present Day Palouse Subbasin 1-2 1.2.1 General Description 1-2 1.2.2 Land Use and Land Ownership 1-3 1.2.3 Jurisdictional Authorities 1-4 1.2.4 Water Resources 1-7 1.2.5 Water Quality 1-9 1.3 Anthropogenic Disturbances 1-13 1.4 Wildlife and Fish Resources 1-14 1.4.1 Historic Habitats 1-14 1.4.2 Current Habitat Types 1-15 1.4.3 Wildlife Resources 1-30 1.4.4 Palouse Subbasin Fauna and Responses to Habitat Changes 1-43 1.4.5 Focal Species 1-50 1.4.6 Fish Resources 1-64 1.4.7 Fish Habitat 1-72 1.5 Limiting Factors 1-75 1.5.1 Agricultural Conversion 1-79 1.5.2 Exotic Vegetation Encroachment 1-86 1.5.3 Timber Harvest 1-88 1.5.4 Fire Suppression 1-88 1.5.5 Urban Development 1-89 1.5.6 Hydropower Development 1-92 1.5.7 Other Limiting Factors 1-92 2. Inventory 2.1 Management Programs and Policies 2-1 2.1.1 At the Local Level 2-1 2.1.2 At the State Level 2-9 2.1.3 At the Federal Level 2-18 3. Management Plan 3.1 Background 3-1 3.2 Vision for Palouse Subbasin 3-2 3.3 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan 3-3 3.3.1 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 1 3-4 3.3.2 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 2 3-5 3.3.3 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 3 3-6 3.3.4 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 4 3-8 3.3.5 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 5 3-9 3.3.6 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 6 3-10 3.3.7 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 7 3-11 3.3.8 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 8 3-12 3.3.9 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 9 3-13 3.3.10 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 10 3-14 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: Table of Contents (Continued) 3.3.11 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 11 3-15 3.3.12 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 12 3-16 3.3.13 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 13 3-17 3.3.14 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 14 3-18 3.3.15 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 15 3-19 3.3.16 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 16 3-20 3.3.17 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 17 3-20 3.3.18 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 18 3-21 3.3.19 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 19 3-22 3.3.20 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 20 3-22 3.3.21 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 21 3-23 3.3.22 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Objective 22 3-25 3.4 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives 3-23 4. References 4-1 Appendix A. Priority Habitat Species List Appendix B. Federal and State Listed Species of the Palouse Subbasin Appendix C. Washington and Idaho Partners in Flight List Appendix D. Noxious Weed Lists Appendix E. Technical Team and Working Group Members Appendix F. Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives Pertinent to the Subbasin Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: Table of Contents (Continued) List of Figures Figure 1. Rolling Palouse Hills 1-1 Figure 2. Palouse Subbasin within the Columbia Plateau Province 1-2 Figure 3. Palouse River Falls 1-7 Figure 4. Palouse Subbasin Wildlife Habitat Types 1-18 List of Tables Table 1. Acres of Habitat Types within the Palouse Subbasin 1-20 Table 2. Wildlife Species Occurrences for the Palouse Subbasin 1-33 Table 3. Wildlife Game Species of the Palouse Subbasin 1-42 Table 4. Waterfowl Species Utilizing the Palouse Subbasin 1-46 Table 5. Focal Species within Palouse Subbasin Wildlife Habitat Types 1-52 Table 6. Focal Species Selection for Agricultural Habitat Type 1-53 Table 7. Focal Species Selection for Shrub-Steppe Habitat Type 1-54 Table 8. Focal Species Selection for Ponderosa Pine Habitat Type 1-56 Table 9. Focal Species Selection for Grassland Habitat Type 1-58 Table 10. Focal Species Selection for Mixed Conifer Habitat Type 1-60 Table 11. Focal Species Selection for Riparian and Wetland Habitat Type 1-62 Table 12. Fish Species Present in Palouse Subbasin 1-65 Table 13. Fisheries Data for the Palouse River 1-67 Table 14. WDFW Lake Management Strategies 1-74 Table 15. Summary of Agricultural Conversion Limiting Factor 1-76 Table 16. Effects of Exotic Vegetation Encroachment 1-76 Table 17. Effects of Timber Harvest 1-77 Table 18. Effects of Fire Suppression 1-77 Table 19. Effect of Urban Development 1-77 Table 20. Effects of Hydropower Development 1-78 Table 21. Effects of Other Limiting Factors 1-78 Table 22. Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Summary 3-3 Table 23. Palouse Subbasin Management Plan Strategies and the RPAs Addressed 3-25 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan i. Introduction FINAL DRAFT ~ May 2004 Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: INTRODUCTION i. Introduction The Palouse subbasin management plan was developed as part of the rolling provincial review process developed by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) for each of the 62 subbasins in the Columbia River Basin. Subbasin plans will be reviewed and adopted into the NWPCC’s Columbia Fish and Wildlife Program to help direct Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding of projects aimed at protection, mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats adversely impacted by the development and operation of the Columbia River hydropower system. The NWPCC, BPA, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) intend to use subbasin plans to help meet the requirements of the 2000 Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion. The subbasin plan is also intended to provide a resource for use by USFWS as a part of threatened and endangered species recovery planning. Initial planning began with the designation of Palouse-Rock Lake Conservation District (PRLCD) as the lead entity. In June 2003, the PRLCD was awarded a budget of $29,635 to develop the Palouse subbasin management plan. The lead entity’s responsibility, serving as a contractor to the NWPCC, was to initiate the planning process. The manager of PRLCD, Trevor Cook, served as the subbasin coordinator. The subbasin coordinator provided leadership throughout the process, served as a contact point, and coordinated communication between various stakeholders and interested parties. PRLCD subcontracted with Resource Planning Unlimited, Inc. (RPU) in June 2003 to facilitate the planning process, write and edit management plan components. To enable a coordinated ecosystem-based approach to fish and wildlife habitat protection and restoration efforts, the PRLCD convened the Palouse subbasin Technical Team (Technical Team). The Technical Team is comprised of fish and wildlife agency representatives with jurisdictional authority within the Palouse subbasin. These team members assisted in developing all sections of the plan, including the assessment; inventory; and management. A Palouse subbasin Working Group (Working Group) was developed by PRLCD. The Working Group was comprised of representatives from fish and wildlife habitat interests throughout the Palouse subbasin. (Technical Team and Working Group members listed in Appendix E.) Two methods of plan development were used to craft the Palouse subbasin management plan and accompanying components; group meetings and individual meetings. Beginning in October 2003, draft documents were sent via electronic mail to Technical Team and Working Group members on three occasions, providing an opportunity to assist and comment in developing an inventory of past and ongoing projects, defining critical issues, recommending guiding principles, and identified alternative solutions. Along with the draft document distributions were accompanying meetings which were held to review and contribute to plan development. Meetings were held on three occasions throughout the planning process with all meetings open to the public. Agency and public participation in group meetings and document review was limited; however, in addition to Technical Committee meetings, individual meetings were held between Technical Team members, subbasin coordinator and the contractor to review and revise the plan. The individual contacts, in addition to the group sessions, were effective for revising draft documents for submittal, review and comments. Introduction: Page - i Palouse Subbasin Management Plan: INTRODUCTION The Palouse subbasin management plan is comprised of three parts; the Assessment, Inventory, and Management Plan. The three components are interdependent, while each plays a unique role in understanding the characteristics, management history, and visions for the future of the Palouse subbasin. The Palouse subbasin management plan’s components include: • Assessment: The assessment characterizes historic and current biophysical conditions in the Palouse subbasin. It represents an interdisciplinary effort by multiple agencies to provide necessary technical information to guide actions to restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat within the Palouse subbasin. The assessment provides the analysis and background information to support the recommendations made in the Palouse subbasin management plan. • Inventory: The inventory includes information on existing fish and wildlife protection, restoration, artificial production activities, and management plans within the subbasin.
Recommended publications
  • The Nez Perce Tribe Conducted a Year Long Community Monitoring

    The Nez Perce Tribe Conducted a Year Long Community Monitoring

    Lewiston-Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study Page 1 of 10 Project Title: Lewiston – Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study (Community-Scale Monitoring) Applicant: Nez Perce Tribe Environmental Restoration & Waste Management Division Air Quality Program P.O. Box 365 Lapwai, ID 83540 Julie Simpson, Air Quality Program Coordinator phone 208.621.3818 fax 208.843.7411 [email protected] Funding Requested: $418,789 Total Project Cost: $418,789 Project Period: May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018 DUNS number: 078208303 Lewiston-Clarkston Valley Formaldehyde Study Page 2 of 10 Basis and Rationale: Submitted to the Community-Scale Monitoring category, the proposed Lewiston- Clarkston (LC) Valley Formaldehyde (HCHO) Study will identify sources of elevated carbonyls found in the year long community monitoring assessment the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) conducted in 2006/2007 in the Lewiston-Clarkston Valley (LC Valley) and on the Nez Perce Reservation in North Central Idaho. (http://www.nezperce.org/Official/Air%20Quality/Airtoxics/airtoxics.htm). Data analysis results and recommendations competed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. for the 2006/2007 study clearly identified the need for additional research (McCarthy et al, 2009): Concentrations of formaldehyde [HCHO] and acetaldehyde were much higher than expected for an area of Lewiston’s size. Because HCHO is the largest contributor to cancer risk among the pollutants measured and acetaldehyde is a significant contributor, this result is significant. Concentrations of HCHO and acetaldehyde were highest in the summer months but did not appear to be related to special events like large wildfires. Secondary production of HCHO and acetaldehyde are most likely to be responsible for the seasonal pattern but it is unclear why concentrations are higher in the Lewiston area than at other sites in the Inland Northwest.
  • Forests of Eastern Oregon: an Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann

    Forests of Eastern Oregon: an Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann

    Forests of Eastern Oregon: An Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann United States Forest Pacific Northwest General Tecnical Report Department of Service Research Station PNW-GTR-578 Agriculture April 2003 Revised 2004 Joseph area, eastern Oregon. Photo by Tom Iraci Authors Sally Campbell is a biological scientist, Dave Azuma is a research forester, and Dale Weyermann is geographic information system manager, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main, Portland, OR 97205. Cover: Aspen, Umatilla National Forest. Photo by Tom Iraci Forests of Eastern Oregon: An Overview Sally Campbell, Dave Azuma, and Dale Weyermann U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, OR April 2003 State Forester’s Welcome Dear Reader: The Oregon Department of Forestry and the USDA Forest Service invite you to read this overview of eastern Oregon forests, which provides highlights from recent forest inventories.This publication has been made possible by the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, with support from the Oregon Department of Forestry. This report was developed from data gathered by the FIA in eastern Oregon’s forests in 1998 and 1999, and has been supplemented by inventories from Oregon’s national forests between 1993 and 1996.This report and other analyses of FIA inventory data will be extremely useful as we evaluate fire management strategies, opportunities for improving rural economies, and other elements of forest management in eastern Oregon.We greatly appreciate FIA’s willingness to work with the researchers, analysts, policymakers, and the general public to collect, analyze, and distrib- ute information about Oregon’s forests.
  • Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report

    Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report

    RECONNAISSANCE SURFICIAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING OF THE LATE CENOZOIC SEDIMENTS OF THE COLUMBIA BASIN, WASHINGTON by James G. Rigby and Kurt Othberg with contributions from Newell Campbell Larry Hanson Eugene Kiver Dale Stradling Gary Webster Open File Report 79-3 September 1979 State of Washington Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources Olympia, Washington CONTENTS Introduction Objectives Study Area Regional Setting 1 Mapping Procedure 4 Sample Collection 8 Description of Map Units 8 Pre-Miocene Rocks 8 Columbia River Basalt, Yakima Basalt Subgroup 9 Ellensburg Formation 9 Gravels of the Ancestral Columbia River 13 Ringold Formation 15 Thorp Gravel 17 Gravel of Terrace Remnants 19 Tieton Andesite 23 Palouse Formation and Other Loess Deposits 23 Glacial Deposits 25 Catastrophic Flood Deposits 28 Background and previous work 30 Description and interpretation of flood deposits 35 Distinctive geomorphic features 38 Terraces and other features of undetermined origin 40 Post-Pleistocene Deposits 43 Landslide Deposits 44 Alluvium 45 Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits 45 Colluvium 46 Sand Dunes 46 Mirna Mounds and Other Periglacial(?) Patterned Ground 47 Structural Geology 48 Southwest Quadrant 48 Toppenish Ridge 49 Ah tanum Ridge 52 Horse Heaven Hills 52 East Selah Fault 53 Northern Saddle Mountains and Smyrna Bench 54 Selah Butte Area 57 Miscellaneous Areas 58 Northwest Quadrant 58 Kittitas Valley 58 Beebe Terrace Disturbance 59 Winesap Lineament 60 Northeast Quadrant 60 Southeast Quadrant 61 Recommendations 62 Stratigraphy 62 Structure 63 Summary 64 References Cited 66 Appendix A - Tephrochronology and identification of collected datable materials 82 Appendix B - Description of field mapping units 88 Northeast Quadrant 89 Northwest Quadrant 90 Southwest Quadrant 91 Southeast Quadrant 92 ii ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1.
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior Nez Perce Tribe July 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). Title of Proposed Action: Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program. States Involved: Idaho. Abstract: Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Nez Perce Tribe propose a supplementation program to restore chinook salmon to the Clearwater River Subbasin in Idaho. The Clearwater River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River. The Final EIS includes a new alternative suggested by commentors to the Draft EIS. In the Proposed Action, the Nez Perce Tribe would build and operate two central incubation and rearing hatcheries and six satellite facilities. Spring and fall chinook salmon would be reared and acclimated to different areas in the Subbasin and released at the hatchery and satellite sites or in other watercourses throughout the Subbasin. The supplementation program differs from other hatchery programs because the fish would be released at different sizes and would return to reproduce naturally in the areas where they are released. The Use of Existing Facilities Alternative proposes using existing production hatcheries and the proposed satellite facilities to meet the need. Facilities at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery, and Hagerman National Fish Hatchery would be used as central incubation and rearing facilities.
  • Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein

    Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington by Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein

    Prepared in Cooperation with the Water Resources Program of the Yakama Nation Geologic Map of the Simcoe Mountains Volcanic Field, Main Central Segment, Yakama Nation, Washington By Wes Hildreth and Judy Fierstein Pamphlet to accompany Scientific Investigations Map 3315 Photograph showing Mount Adams andesitic stratovolcano and Signal Peak mafic shield volcano viewed westward from near Mill Creek Guard Station. Low-relief rocky meadows and modest forested ridges marked by scattered cinder cones and shields are common landforms in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field. Mount Adams (elevation: 12,276 ft; 3,742 m) is centered 50 km west and 2.8 km higher than foreground meadow (elevation: 2,950 ft.; 900 m); its eruptions began ~520 ka, its upper cone was built in late Pleistocene, and several eruptions have taken place in the Holocene. Signal Peak (elevation: 5,100 ft; 1,555 m), 20 km west of camera, is one of largest and highest eruptive centers in Simcoe Mountains volcanic field; short-lived shield, built around 3.7 Ma, is seven times older than Mount Adams. 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Introductory Overview for Non-Geologists ...............................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2 Physiography, Environment, Boundary Surveys, and Access ......................................................6 Previous Geologic
  • Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    8 Fishery Resources 8.1 Fish Status Currently more than 30 species of fish inhabit the Clearwater subbasin, including 19 native species, two of which have been reintroduced (Table 43). Salmonids and cyprinids are most numerous, representing 10 and 6 species, respectively. Exotic species within the subbasin are generally introduced sport or forage species, and include primarily centrarchids, ictalurids, and salmonids. Five fish species have been chosen as aquatic focal species in this assessment: chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Aquatic focal species may serve as indicators of larger communities, and are listed by federal and/or state agencies as species of concern or, in the case of brook trout, have the potential to negatively impact other selected species. In addition, aquatic focal species had adequate data available for species status, distribution, and habitat use to aid future decision making. Information is also provided for additional species of interest for which only limited data exists, redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Although species status is discussed, data limitations for these species prohibits substantial consideration of limiting factors and distribution or condition of existing habitat areas. The resident fishery in Dworshak Reservoir is also considered a substantial fishery resource in the Clearwater subbasin. The Dworshak Reservoir fishery involves multiple species, and is addressed as a single fishery rather than as a large number of individual species. Distribution and status information was compiled for the five aquatic focal species using 23 data sources.
  • To See a Complete List of All Special Plates Types Available

    To See a Complete List of All Special Plates Types Available

    2021 SPECIAL LICENSE PLATE FUND INFORMATION Plate Program Fund Name Responsible Organization (Idaho Code) Program Purpose Friends of 4-H Division University of Idaho Foundation 4H (49-420M) Funds to be used for educational events, training materials for youth and leaders, and to better prepare Idaho youth for future careers. Agriculture Ag in the Classroom Account Department of Agriculture (49-417B) Develop and present an ed. program for K-12 students with a better understanding of the crucial role of agriculture today, and how Idaho agriculture relates to the world. Appaloosa N/A Appaloosa Horse Club (49-420C) Funding of youth horse programs in Idaho. Idaho Aviation Foundation Idaho Aviation Association Aviation (49-420K) Funds use by the Idaho Aviation Foundation for grants relating to the maintenance, upgrade and development of airstrips and for improving access and promoting safety at backcountry and recreational airports in Idaho. N/A - Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Biking (49-419E) Funds shall be used exclusively for the preservation, maintenance, and expansion of recreational trails within the state of Idaho and on which mountain biking is permitted. Capitol Commission Idaho Capitol Endowment Income Fund – IC 67-1611 Capitol Commission (49-420A) To help fund the restoration of the Idaho Capitol building located in Boise, Idaho. Centennial Highway Distribution Account Idaho Transportation Department (49-416) All revenue shall be deposited in the highway distribution account. Choose Life N/A Choose Life Idaho, Inc. (49-420R) To help support pregnancy help centers in Idaho. To engage in education and support of adoption as a positive choice for women, thus encouraging alternatives to abortion.
  • Power System

    Power System

    HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kevin Schneider Ph.D., P.E. Chair, Seattle Chapter of the IEEE PES IEEE PES SCHOLARSHIP PLUS INITIATIVE 2 Washington State PES Scholars • Patrick Berg, Seattle University • Parichehr Karimi, University of • Zachary Burrows, Eastern Washington Washington UiUnivers ity • TiTravis Kinney, WhitWashington Sta te UiUnivers ity • Erin Clement, University of Washington • Allan Koski, Eastern Washington University • Anastasia Corman, University of • Kyle Lindgren, University of Washington, Washington • John Martinsen, Washington State • Gwendolyn Crabtree, Washington State University University • Melissa Martinsen, University of • David Dearing, Washington State Washington University • JthJonathan NhiNyhuis, SttlSeattle PifiPacific UiUnivers ity • Terra Donley, Gonzaga University Derek Jared Pisinger, Washington State Gowrylow, Seattle University University • Sanel Hirkic, Washington State University • Douglas Rapier, Washington State • Nathan Hirsch, Eastern Washington University University • Chris Rusnak, Washington State University • John Hofman, Washington State • Kaiwen Sun, University of Washington University • Joshua Wu, Seattle University • • Tracy Yuan, University of Washington 3 OVERVIEW Part 1: The Current Status of the Electricity Infrastructure in the Pacific North west Part 2: How the Current System Evolved Over Time Part 3: Current Challenges and the Path Forward Part 4: Concluding Comments PART 1:: THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE
  • Washington Grain Train

    Washington Grain Train

    How does the Washington Grain Train generate revenues? Washington Usage fees for grain cars are generated on the BNSF Railroad based on a combination of mileage traveled and number of days on that railroad (time and mileage). The further the car travels Grain Train and the longer it is on a particular railroad, the more money the car earns. The shuttle service between grain elevators and the barge terminal in Wallula use a different system. A car use fee per trip was June 2011 established for the shuttle service based on estimates of time and mileage. One car use fee was established for shipments on the PV Hooper rail line, and another for the BLMR. These fees are deposited directly into accounts managed by each of the three Grain Train Revolving Fund (Washington State-Owned Cars) port districts. These funds are used for grain car maintenance, car tracking, and Dollars in millions eventual car replacement (based on a 20- $1.4 year depreciation schedule). A portion of $1.2 these fees are also set aside and used as $1.0 a “reserve” fund that is periodically tapped for fleet expansion. $0.8 Once the reserve fund has grown large $0.6 enough to purchase rail cars and there is $0.4 a demonstrated need for additional cars, WSDOT can instruct the port districts to $0.2 send funds to a rail car sales firm selected $0 by WSDOT. This firm then delivers the cars 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 to Washington for rehabilitation and then Twenty nine additional grain hopper rail cars were purchased in 2010.
  • 10. Palouse Prairie Section

    10. Palouse Prairie Section

    10. Palouse Prairie Section Section Description The Palouse Prairie Section, part of the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion, is located along the western border of northern Idaho, extending west into Washington (Fig. 10.1, Fig. 10.2). This section is characterized by dissected loess-covered basalt plains, undulating plateaus, and river breaks. Elevation ranges from 220 to 1,700 m (722 to 5,577 ft). Soils are generally deep, loamy to silty, and have formed in loess, alluvium, or glacial outwash. The lower reaches and confluence of the Snake and Clearwater rivers are major waterbodies. Climate is maritime influenced. Precipitation ranges from 25 to 76 cm (10 to 30 in) annually, falling primarily during the fall, winter, and spring, and winter precipitation falls mostly as snow. Summers are relatively dry. Average annual temperature ranges from 7 to 12 ºC (45 to 54 ºF). The growing season varies with elevation and lasts 100 to 170 days. Population centers within the Idaho portion of the section are Lewiston and Moscow, and small agricultural communities are dispersed throughout. Outdoor recreational opportunities include hunting, angling, hiking, biking, and wildlife viewing. The largest Idaho Palouse Prairie grassland remnant on Gormsen Butte, south of Department of Fish and Moscow, Idaho with cropland surrounding © 2008 Janice Hill Game (IDFG) Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Idaho, Craig Mountain WMA, is partially located within this section. The deep and highly-productive soils of the Palouse Prairie have made dryland farming the primary land use in this section. Approximately 44% of the land is used for agriculture with most farming operations occurring on private land.
  • Conifer Trees of the Umatilla National Forest

    Conifer Trees of the Umatilla National Forest

    Outer bark scales are thin and purplish, covering a reddish inner bark. inner reddish a covering purplish, and thin are scales bark Outer BARK: Poisonous. Coral-red fl eshy (berry-like) cup that is open at one end and contains a single seed. single a contains and end one at open is that cup (berry-like) eshy fl Coral-red Poisonous. FRUITS: 1” long. Have a distinctive pointed tip and form two opposite rows along branches. along rows opposite two form and tip pointed distinctive a Have long. 1” NEEDLES: Up to 40’ in the Blue Mountains. Blue the in 40’ to Up HEIGHT: Washington, northern Idaho, and northwestern Montana. northwestern and Idaho, northern Washington, Southern British Columbia, the Cascades of Washington and Oregon, northern Sierras, eastern Oregon and and Oregon eastern Sierras, northern Oregon, and Washington of Cascades the Columbia, British Southern RANGE: chemical called taxol, extracted from yew bark, was found to be an effective cancer treatment. cancer effective an be to found was bark, yew from extracted taxol, called chemical often square in profi le, eventually becoming cone-shaped with age. Yew wood is used for archery bows and canoe paddles. A A paddles. canoe and bows archery for used is wood Yew age. with cone-shaped becoming eventually le, profi in square often Small conifer tree or large shrub with a square or twisted stem and a broad crown of slender horizontal branches. Young stems are are stems Young branches. horizontal slender of crown broad a and stem twisted or square a with shrub large or tree conifer Small Taxus brevifolia Taxus Pacifi c yew c Pacifi Thin, reddish-brown, furrowed (on older trees) and fi brous or shredded.
  • Idaho PM Technical Note 2B (Revise): Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest

    Idaho PM Technical Note 2B (Revise): Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest

    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho - Spokane, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 2B OCTOBER 2011 REVISION Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Pamela Pavek, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Mark Stannard, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Tim Dring, State Biologist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Jim Cane, Bee Biology and Systematics Lab, ARS, Logan, Utah Karen Fullen, State Biologist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Loren St. John, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Brownbelted bumble bee (Bombus griseocollis) visiting a blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). Pamela Pavek The purpose of this Technical Note is to provide guidance for the design and implementation of conservation plantings to enhance habitat for pollinators including: bees, wasps, butterflies, moths and hummingbirds. Plant species included in this document are adapted to the Inland Northwest, which encompasses northern Idaho, northeastern Oregon and eastern Washington. For species adapted to southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, northern Nevada and northern Utah, refer to Idaho Plant Materials Technical Note 2A. For lists of species adapted to western Washington and western Oregon, refer to the Oregon